Talk:Bringing Up Baby

Released: June 16, 1950. Isn't this a 1938 movie?

I've seen this film many times (one of my favourites), and I've always taken the use of "gey" to be its older use ("merry", "giddy"), which just happens to resonate with the modern use ("homosexual") because Grant's character is wearing women's clothes at the time. Is there any evidence to suggest otherwise? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Look at the Cary Grant and Gay articles. Also: [1], [2], [3]

'Gay' as an adjective may have been used as far back as the 1500s in England's theaters for a young man or boy wearing the costume of a woman in a play ("send in the Gay"). A suggestion of immorality in the word can be traced back to 1637. The Oxford dictionary defines one of the seventeenth-century meanings for gay as "addicted to social pleasures and dissipations, often euphemistic: of immoral life." John Ayto in 20th Century Words calls attention to the ambiguous use of the word in the 1868 song "The Gay Young Clerk in the Dry Goods Store," by a U.S. female impersonator Will S. Hays. Hugh Rawson in Wicked Words notes a male prostitute using 'gay' in reference to male homosexuals (but also to female prostitutes) in London's notorious Cleveland Street Scandal of 1889. The word 'gay' in the 1890s had an overall tinge of promiscuity -- a 'gay house' was a brothel. Like "molly," which was originally slang for a female prostitute, "gay" may have been extended to describe male prostitutes or transvestites who often frequented the same neighborhoods (the "gay" quarters).

The term 'gey cat' (gey is a Scottish variant of gay) was used as far back as 1893 in American English for "young hobo," one who is new on the road and usually in the company of an older tramp, with catamite connotations (they formed protective, often sexual, alliances). But Josiah Flynt in Tramping With Tramps (1905) defines 'gay cat' as, "An amateur tramp who works when his begging courage fails him." Gey cats also were said to be tramps who offered sexual services to women. Gey cat, "homosexual boy," is attested in N. Erskine's 1933 dictionary of Underworld & Prison Slang.

Robert Chapman's The Dictionary of American Slang reports that 'gay' (adj.) was used by homosexuals, among themselves, in this sense since at least 1920. Donald Webster Cory writes in The Homosexual in America, "Psychoanalysts have informed me that their homosexual patients were calling themselves gay in the nineteen-twenties, and certainly by the nineteen-thirties it was the most common word in use by homosexuals themselves." About this time, English speakers began to use "gay" as a playful, double-entendre code word. An early example of this usage in print is Gertrude Stein's characteristically repetitive language in her short story Miss Furr and Miss Skeene (1922): "They were quite regularly gay there, Helen Furr and Georgine Skeene, they were regularly gay there when they were gay. They were very regularly gay."

'Gay' was first used to refer to a male homosexual in the book The Young and Evil which was co-authored by Charles Henri Ford and Parker Tyler and published by Obelisk Press in 1933. It depicts their life in Greenwich Village in 1930-31. It was one of the first novels that dealt with homosexual characters in a nonjudgmental way and was a cause celebre for a whole circle of bohemian modernists. Published in Paris, it was banned in both the United States and Great Britain and any copies found in the possession of travelers was seized by customs. It first appeared in the United States in 1960 as a reprint by Olympia Press.

New Yorkers were using 'gay' by 1939 as a alternative to 'queer,' 'pansy,' and 'fairy.' Gershon Legman & G.V. Henry mentioned the term in their book Sexual Variations (1941). In the 1940's, Lisa Ben could discreetly call her lesbian friends "gay pals" and her publication, Vice Versa, "America's gayest magazine," knowing that most heterosexuals would not grasp the full implication of the word. Similarly in 1951, Donald Webster Cory wrote that it was such an insiders' term that "an advertisement for a roommate can actually ask for a gay youth, but could not possibly call for a homosexual." The term was also recorded in Australia in 1951, in which the term 'gay boy' was used. In Dr. Richard C. Robertiello's book Voyage from Lesbos (1959) he details the analysis of a lesbian patient named "Connie," Connie uses the world "gay" to describe a girl in one her dreams.

The term "gay" did not become widely familiar to the general public, until the Stonewall riot in 1969 and became synonymous with a (usually male) homosexual in 1971 but by 1974 the word was expanded to mean both male and female homosexuals. In the 1980's many writers, ignoring the word's history, attacked the "new" usage as a corruption of a useful, "innocent" adjective.

References: [4], [5], [6], [7]

Books:

According to Vito Russo in The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies, the script actually had Dexter (Grant) saying "I. . . I suppose you think its odd, my wearing this. I realise it looks odd. . . I don't usually . . . I mean, I don't own one of these." However Grant ad-libbed his own line, "No. I've just gone gay . . . all of the sudden." pg. 47. Vito Russo had pointed out that this was an indication that people in Hollywood, at least in Grant's circles, were already familiar with the slang connotations of the word.

Completely Queer: The Gay and Lesbian Encyclopedia by Steve Hogan and Lee Hudson, pg. 229

Out of the Past: Gay and Lesbian History from 1869 to the Present by Neil Miller, pgs. 358-359

Gay American History: Lesbians & Gay Men in the U.S.A. by Jonathan Ned Katz, pgs. 188-189 -- WiccaIrish 15:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's all very interesting (if that sounds sarcastic, it isn't meant to be; it really is interesting), but it doesn't answer my question. It shows that the use of "gay" to mean "homosexual" wouldn't have been anachronistic, and that Grant probably knew of that usage, but not that that was how he meant it. Is there any evidence that that was how it was meant? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's the problem. Grant nor anyone connected to the film ever confirmed this, that I know of. Of course Grant was speculated to have been bisexual, and may have avoided the question altogether. The question may have never been asked in the first place. -- WiccaIrish 02:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps a condensed version of this discussion could be placed in the article. Obviously it's not a huge issue, but if it could be explained accurately and concisely it would be relevant and of interest. (There are echoes of the Goon Show here; they got away with murder on the BBC in the 1950s, because the BBC executives weren't familiar with forces slang.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

How about:

Arguably, this was the first film to use gay in a homosexual context. Robert Chapman's The Dictionary of American Slang reports that 'gay' (adj.) was used by homosexuals, among themselves, in this sense since at least 1920. Donald Webster Cory writes in The Homosexual in America, "Psychoanalysts have informed me that their homosexual patients were calling themselves gay in the nineteen-twenties, and certainly by the nineteen-thirties it was the most common word in use by homosexuals themselves." Donald Webster Cory wrote that it was such an insiders' term that "an advertisement for a roommate can actually ask for a gay youth, but could not possibly call for a homosexual." According to Vito Russo the script actually had Dexter (Grant) saying "I. . . I suppose you think its odd, my wearing this. I realise it looks odd. . . I don't usually . . . I mean, I don't own one of these." However Grant ad-libbed his own line, "No. I've just gone gay . . . all of the sudden." Vito Russo had pointed out that this was an indication that people in Hollywood, at least in Grant's circles, were already familiar with the slang connotations of the word. However, Grant himself nor anyone involved in the film ever confirmed this. Of course Grant was speculated to have been bisexual, and may have avoided the question altogether. The question may have never been asked in the first place. The term "gay" did not become widely familiar to the general public, until the Stonewall riot in 1969.

I added the above to the article (with source added). Feel free to edit it or take it out. It's entirely up to you. -- WiccaIrish 16:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure this should have been left at Bringing Up Baby (capital "U"). Generally accepted usage is that prepositions are capitalized if they're part of a verb phrase. —Chowbok 03:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Talulah Gosh recorded a song based on this film. See Backwash_(album). Asat 02:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is a considerably large section in this article discussing the history of the word "gay." I don't think this is necessary. This is an article about a movie, not about the history of the word. Could we cut this down a bit? Then people who want more information about the history of this word just go to the article on the topic. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The use of the word in this movie is already in the Gay artilcle, probably it should expanded there rather than harped on too much here. It's an unresolved problem, because, of course in this period the term gay was very widely used in popular culture (The Gay Divorce, The Gay Falcon etc), and the dominant meaning of widely used phrases like "gay bachelor", "gay lothario" and "gay caballero" had nothing to do with homosexuality, but rather implied the opposite, a roving heterosexual lifestyle. Gay in a sexual context generally meant 'uninhibited'. In other words the full range of connotations at the time are difficult to clearly recover, expecially those that would have been intelligable to the avarage person in contemporary cinema audiences. These issues are surely best dealt with in the Gay article, with a relatively brief mention here. Paul B (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Why are you wearing a woman's negligée?! – "Because I turned HAPPY/MERRY/"roving heterosexual" all of a sudden!" – Suuuuuure! Furthermore, the line was ad-libbed by Grant, and thus an in-joke not intended to be understood by an "average person". HE knew what it actually meant, and everybody involved knew. His body language is unequivocal, too. -- megA (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Leopards are from Africa and Asia, not Brazil. The only similar cat there is the jaguar. As I didn't see the movie I can't tell if it's "leopard" or "Brazil" that is a false claim in this article or if the movie misidentifies species or origin. Anybody can recognize which is which from body shape and dotting pattern on the fur. 78.14.230.249 (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually it is a factual error in the movie. Hepburn's character quotes a letter from her brother, who sent it along with the leopard from Brazil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.2.31.21 (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

None of my sources contain any info, but something should be added about screenwriter Dudley Nichols being partly inspired by the real life romantic relationship between John Ford and Hepburn.--66.212.78.220 (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I saw The Thin Man (film) yesterday and William Powell did a rather bad mimic and said "I'm feeling rather gay" or something and it was definitely meant in the same way that Grant meant it. That was four years before this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bringing Up Baby/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Krimuk90 (talk · contribs) 15:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Will review shortly. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

A well written article, and definitely meets the GA-criteria. This is going to be an embarrassingly short review:

• I read through the peer review, and I must say that was quite a discussion on in-line citations. Having reviewed several of Blofeld's articles in the past I can safely assume that the claims are covered in the sources provided, but while every single sentence does not need in-line citations, it would be good to provide one for these claims:
  

1. Image caption in the casting section: "...while Grant was rapidly becoming a major star."

Removed claim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

2. In reception: "The film received good advance reviews, and RKO expected a hit."

3. Use of "gay" section: "According to Robert Chapman's Dictionary of American Slang, the adjective "gay" was used by homosexuals among themselves since at least 1920."

• In the D&W section, Gunga Din is in italics in some places and in quotes elsewhere. Maintain consistency.
• Reception section: "In a Variety review "Wear" praised the film,..". Not sure what "Wear" is supposed to signify here.
• In the "external links" section, why is "Theater of Romance" in boldface?

I will be happy to pass when these are addressed. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Krimuk90: Thanks for the review. Addressed all except the 1920 one which I can't access in gb. I've added the book but can't access the page number. I'll ask Deo if he has access. but it's not stopping it passing is it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Haha, no no, it's fine. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:  

   B. MoS compliance:  

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:  

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  

   C. No original research:  

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:  

   B. Focused:  

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:  

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:  

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:   -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Deo has bought a book I believe so it'll continue to be worked on and a themes section added etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah. You should take it to the FAC after that. Good luck! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Including the debate over the word "gay", this movie pushed some limits. After the dog steals the Brontosaurus bone, Grant accuses Hepburn of stealing it, and after some mild "bone" double-entendres:

Grant: Was there somebody else in the room?

Hepburn: No, David, there was nobody else on the room, but... David, George.

Grant: Who's George?

Hepburn: The dog. You know, pussy, dog, bone, dog, bone...

I don't know if this is an ad lib by Hepburn. I have a copy of this movie and I've listened to this many times, and that's what she said, as far as I can tell.

Not to mention... (earlier in the movie)

Grant: 'Yes, but I have to go to Carnegie Hall to meet Miss Swallow.

Hepburn: 'Miss... Swallow? 72.182.33.219 (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC) EricReply

Even earlier, right at the beginning, Grant is contemplating a fossil bone and suggests it goes in the tail of the skeleton. Miss Swallow: "You tried it in the tail yesterday, and it didn't fit."

Yikes! Wastrel Way (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC) EricReply

Obviously there have been used two animals at least for shooting. The leopard in the car is a rear projection of a much larger animal than Nissa. Also when Hepburn's character is dragging the leopard into the jail a second leash is partially visible, suggesting there have been two shots combined. Actors in the 30's may have been more adventurous but certainly not stupid... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.2.31.21 (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I believe there is an error on the US release date of Nov. 23, '38. This article currently lists Nov. 23, '38 as the nationwide release date. If it premiered in San Francisco on Feb. 16, '38, that seems like a long delay for the film to be released in Nov '38. The American Film Institute lists Feb. 18, '38 as it release date, which sounds more logical. See this AFI entry: https://catalog.afi.com/Catalog/moviedetails/6702 I recall reading somewhere that it premiered in NYC, but business was so bad, it was "lifted" for make way for "Jezebel" starring Bette Davis, which premiered in NYC on March 10, '38. See: Jezebel (1938 film)

Entertainment Buff 12:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

You very well may be right. For now I've moved the wide release date below, and kept the "citation needed" tag. I wasn't sure if the AFI's February 18 release was taken from the "claimant" date of February 18, so it would be helpful if someone with deeper research skills than I could confirm that it was released around that time. But I agree that November 23 sounds suspicious. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you!!! Entertainment Buff 13:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)